Tell me, brothers and sisters why it falls to US each and every time to prove the Duterocanon was NOT added by the Catholic Church; it falls to US to prove to Protestants that THEY took the books out of their canon (and why)?
The real issue here is authority. By what authority would anyone or any entity:
- reorder the placement of scripture?
- remove scripture, reducing the inerrant and inspired written Word of God from 73 to 66 books?
- question whether the canon established by the Church contained the right number of books, or the right books themselves?
Christ did not set up the English Bible Society to have authority over his Church, nor did he set up the any of the 16th century reformers with the same.
[quote="Holly3278, post:18, topic:310504"]
I am not sure exactly when the Deuterocanon was removed from the Bible but I do know that Martin Luther did it. He was one of the Protestant "reformers".
Not true. Luther never thought of himself in the same school as with Zwingli for example. Calvin even went so far as to call Lutheran devotion to the Eucharist to be "Superstitious Popery." The break between the "Reformers" and "Lutherans" was from the start. Luther never sought to leave Rome he doubted the turn Rome had taken and did not believe in the legitimacy of the Medici Pope. However that is a far cry from Calvin and Zwingli declaring the sacraments to be of no effect and the Church Herself being a tool of Satan.
I realize that is a fine distinction but Luther's intent was to change practice within the Church not to form a new Church. Recall that even after Luther was excommunicated he refused to recognize this and sought a council even to his death as the Smalcald Articles show. Luther did not like the Pope or what he felt the Vatican had become but to say he sought a dissolution of the Church (as Calvin and Zwingli did) is just not true.
[quote="QNDNNDQDCE, post:12, topic:310504"]
He didn't remove the deuterocanonical books from the Bible. He only called into question their inspiration and authority.
Rather, he considered (if not declared) them non-inspired and segregated them to their own, separate section in his bible. Yet, leaving the books between the covers seems to me to be hedging his bet against a view of being too radical in his revisions. Melanchthon persuaded Martin not to edit the New Testament, which tends to demonstrate Martin's concept of his personal authority, as well as his opinion of the sacred scriptures. What Martin did with the Deuterocanon, in principle, goes far beyond simply "called into question" In Martin's mind,, I do not believe there was any question.
The liar and father of lies.
Indeed, the introduction to the Revised Standard Version (protestant translation) notes that the reformers relied on the canon of the Pharisees, which were the dominent force in Judaism at the time of, and after the destruction of the temple. The Pharisees! I mean, go ahead and revolt if you must, but to rely on the judgment of the Pharisees as to scripture? What did our Lord Himself say about the Pharisees and scripture?
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
39 Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.
King James Version (KJV)
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
This Divine condemnation of the Pharisee's prudence regarding the scriptures should have torpedoed any attempt to rely on them for a canon. But, the ego forged ahead full steam nevertheless.
[quote="bogeydogg, post:2, topic:310504"]
The English Bible Society removed the Deutero-canonicals in the 19th C. It was not in fact Martin Luther as has been widely repeated on here, but he did place them in an appendix at the back. However their removal was by the EBS in the 19th C and many churches, even conservative Lutheran Churches, still teach from them although not as part of Mass.
Yes, Luther put them in an appendix because he did not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, in that sense, he did remove them from the Bible.
[quote="pablope, post:21, topic:310504"]
But to save money was one of the reasons the DC's were removed. The CC opposing abortion is not to save money...it is a doctrinal position...there is the fallacy of your analogy and reasoning to attempt to equate the opposition to abortion to saving money.
Do you not see how you are fallaciously reading motivation into an action that is nowhere stated in the section of the Wikipedia article you quoted? All it says is that "*n 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere." So what it says is that the BFBS decided to withhold funds from the printing of the Deuterocanon. What it does not say is that they were withholding funds from the publishing of Bibles with "Apocrypha" because they were greedy and wanted to save money. In fact, it states no reason at all for this action. Not only does your conclusion not follow from the text with which you attempt to substantiate it, your conclusion appears to be, from further reading, demonstrably false. The book cited for your quote, on the page immediately preceding, the quote explains:
"There had been no discussion about canonicity when the Society's 'fundamental principles' were established, but when Steinkopf toured Europe in 1812 he realized that if the BFBS was to circulate Bibles on the Continent, they must be somewhat flexible about the Apocrypha. Although the Society's own translations and versions would be circulated without it, they would have to countenance a policy on the part of European societies, supported by BFBS funds, of including the controversial books. This would meet the requirements of both his Lutheran colleagues and of the Roman Catholics into whose hands he hoped to put the scriptures unsullied by notes. But to most British Dissenters, particularly Scottish Presbyterians, the books were not part of the inspired canon and should never be circulated, or subsidized in any way, by the BFBS."
So it is disingenuous to claim that the reason that the Deuterocanon was removed from the Bible was on account of stinginess. Rather, it appears that printing of the Deuterocanon was opposed out of principle as much as the the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion out of principle.
Moreover, it is not as if the BFBS was the first party to remove the deuterocanon from the Bible, as if the BFBS were some sort of Protestant Council of Trent. The same book on the same page notes:
"On the other hand the Council of Trent had declared these books to be integral to the scriptures for Roman Catholics, in whose Bibles it was part of the Old Testament, while the Calvinist and Puritan tradition, including that of Presbyterian Scotland, excluded the Apocrypha from their Bibles altogether."
Therefore, it hard to give this particular story as an account of how the Deuterocanon was removed from the Protestant Bible.
Okay..if it was debated...there is quite a difference...those questioning the DC did not disobey or go out to create their own religions or theology. They submitted to their bishops when they spoke and made a decision.
This is a good observation. The issue of the Biblical Canon is not the primary cause of division between Protestants and Catholics. Are there any Catholic doctrines which cannot be proven from Scripture without the Deuterocanon? Porknpie rightly says: "The real issue here is authority."
[quote="PeaceInChrist, post:19, topic:310504"]
And yet, since the Canon was determined in the 400's, all of the books were used until, at the council of Trent... the earlier decisions were reaffirmed. Again. If those early Christians got the canon wrong, and propagated a false Scripture for over 1,000 years, why, exactly, do you trust that they were guided by the Holy Spirit when determining ANY of the Canon? I sure wouldn't.
As I noted above, there were Catholic bishops in good standing who evidently thought it permissible to contest the inspiration of the Deuterocanon at Trent. As for me, I trust that the Deuterocanon is inspired because I trust the Council of Trent.*
That bishops, or anyone, contested them does not negate my statement. Truth does not cease to be truth, even if someone with authority claims it to be so. For instance, St. Cyprian disagreed with St. Stephen about re-baptism. Cyprian’s position as a bishop and, now, a saint, do not affect the fact that he was wrong. If error had been deemed Canon for over a millennium, I fail to see how one could merely determine that the rest of the early Church Canon, or any decisions, had been inerrant or true to any extent. Regardless of the level of debate, such a grievous error casts doubt on any ability to determine truth at all. Perhaps a reexamination of every decision or dogma ever decided upon should take place.
Further, my other points regarding the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament and the unreliability of Jewish rabbinic canon still stand. The fact that Luther moved books out of a canon that had been used by the writers of the New Testament itself, and single-handedly opposed councils that were closer to the origin of Christianity, without first consulting with any Church hierarchy, is ridiculous. That he turned to rabbinic canon was also ridiculous. I cannot find anything redeemable about this situation. Look at the results: a large portion of Bibles distributed now have only a partial canon, and it has become a further point of division among Christianity. The fruits of rebellion…
The oldest bible has these books and more. You can’t find a bible before the 17th century without the deuteros. enough said.
The 39 book OT is the canon of the Pharisees! Imagine that! The source for this is the introductiion to the Revised Standard Version of the bible - a protestant edition.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees sevenfold - a total and complete condemnation.